TT / 2T Definitions

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If TT is about bragging rights and social standing then it makes sense to define + enforce it scrupulously, based on how that school is perceived among the community whose opinions you care about. (hence the fight over Riverdale)

If TT is about college admissions then it's an open question whether + how much that has to do with the school itself rather than the kids who choose to go there, and it effectively becomes a test of how many rich/famous/connected kids you can recruit.

If TT is about "fit" then it's a meaningless distinction because there's no reason that the schools with the right "fit" for one particular type of kids should be considered better than any others.

Correct on points one and two. If you have a fit with Dwight or another 3T because you like cocaine, don’t do HW, and have a huge allowance, that’s worse than having a fit at a TT.

[Anonymous]

There are definitely kids at traditionally TT schools who have huge allowances and do cocaine and only turn in homework because their tutor "helps" them with it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are definitely kids at traditionally TT schools who have huge allowances and do cocaine and only turn in homework because their tutor "helps" them with it.

Then Dwight and other 3Ts are even worse than people on here think.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But that's BS too. "Fit" has become a pretext for "My DC didn't get into our top choice." Fit should have always been the goal, even amongst the T7. But sorry. It's Ok to say some schools are objectively better than others and why. And maybe the T7 in NYC is now the T10. I don't know. But since the price keeps going up, measuring these schools still seems worthwhile.

Exactly. Slower kids aren’t a good fit for the T7. Otherwise, you’ll find something you like if you’re an achiever and/or hard working. No one ambitious is choosing a 3T over a TT.

Right, and this is why the TTs counsel out kids, and why that's not a bad thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Starting a new thread for this.

There seems to be a lot of uncertainty about which schools are "TT" versus "2T" versus neither, and I think that in general, since ultimately the use is up to every individual and since people are naturally going to tend to want to talk about the achievements of their own kids in the best possible light, we ought to adopt a less restrictive definition of TT rather than a more restrictive one.

I also think this ought to mostly be a function of admissions selectivity rather than exmissions, as most of the discussions here are about that - where to go, application questions, connected preschools, etc - and at any rate exmissions tend to be a lot noisier than applications.

The 5 K-12 schools basically everyone agrees are TT are HM, Dalton, Trinity, Brearley, and Collegiate. I think we can safely add Riverdale, Spence, and Chapin to that list based on how difficult they currently are to get in to. (I am not including Hunter or Regis since they're free, and in Regis' case not K-12)

Beyond that, some questions to consider:

- Are there any other schools that belong in that group selectivity-wise? For example I know that Saint Ann's has crazy good exmissions but I don't get the impression it's quite as much as a lift as the Manhattan schools to get in to.

- Should K-8 schools be graded on the same scale selectivity-wise as K-12 schools, or should they be graded relative to other K-8s? I would tend to favor the first approach - despite the fact that it would be a very short list - since people aren't always going to specify whether a school is K-8 or K-12.

- Where do we then draw the line for 2T? I think we probably ought to define it pretty expansively too, e.g. Nightingale, Friends, Fieldston, Trevor, CGPS, Browning, Avenues, Poly, Packer, UNIS, LREI, etc, along with most of the top K-8s, since again I think people are going to tend to want to use the most generous definition; basically, any school that gets enough applicants that they can turn away a significant number and you're not guaranteed a spot simply by being on grade level and paying full fare. There's obviously a pretty wide range of schools in that list, but I think you're going to have a very hard time defining a clear cutoff between 2T and 3T, and everybody is going to insist that their school is on the 2T side of that line; I've seen some people put Fieldston in 2T and I've seen others insist they don't even belong in 3T.

Riverdale is not TT. There are 7 NYC TTs: Trinity, Dalton, HM, Collegiate, Brearley, Spence and Chapin.

If Riverdale is not TT, then how is Spence and Chapin TT? Also, why not Fieldston?

[Anonymous]

Riverdale has improved its exmissions. Chapin's has declined. Would have to compare but it's possible Riverdale's has surpassed Chapin's.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Starting a new thread for this.

There seems to be a lot of uncertainty about which schools are "TT" versus "2T" versus neither, and I think that in general, since ultimately the use is up to every individual and since people are naturally going to tend to want to talk about the achievements of their own kids in the best possible light, we ought to adopt a less restrictive definition of TT rather than a more restrictive one.

I also think this ought to mostly be a function of admissions selectivity rather than exmissions, as most of the discussions here are about that - where to go, application questions, connected preschools, etc - and at any rate exmissions tend to be a lot noisier than applications.

The 5 K-12 schools basically everyone agrees are TT are HM, Dalton, Trinity, Brearley, and Collegiate. I think we can safely add Riverdale, Spence, and Chapin to that list based on how difficult they currently are to get in to. (I am not including Hunter or Regis since they're free, and in Regis' case not K-12)

Beyond that, some questions to consider:

- Are there any other schools that belong in that group selectivity-wise? For example I know that Saint Ann's has crazy good exmissions but I don't get the impression it's quite as much as a lift as the Manhattan schools to get in to.

- Should K-8 schools be graded on the same scale selectivity-wise as K-12 schools, or should they be graded relative to other K-8s? I would tend to favor the first approach - despite the fact that it would be a very short list - since people aren't always going to specify whether a school is K-8 or K-12.

- Where do we then draw the line for 2T? I think we probably ought to define it pretty expansively too, e.g. Nightingale, Friends, Fieldston, Trevor, CGPS, Browning, Avenues, Poly, Packer, UNIS, LREI, etc, along with most of the top K-8s, since again I think people are going to tend to want to use the most generous definition; basically, any school that gets enough applicants that they can turn away a significant number and you're not guaranteed a spot simply by being on grade level and paying full fare. There's obviously a pretty wide range of schools in that list, but I think you're going to have a very hard time defining a clear cutoff between 2T and 3T, and everybody is going to insist that their school is on the 2T side of that line; I've seen some people put Fieldston in 2T and I've seen others insist they don't even belong in 3T.

Riverdale is not TT. There are 7 NYC TTs: Trinity, Dalton, HM, Collegiate, Brearley, Spence and Chapin.

If Riverdale is not TT, then how is Spence and Chapin TT? Also, why not Fieldston?

They're better schools.

[Anonymous]

Having just gone through K admissions, here’s my take (very broadly speaking). When I refer to “TT,” I’m thinking of schools that tend to have a very consistent culture around pace, expectations, and overall intensity — a relatively narrow group: Trinity, Dalton, Collegiate, Horace Mann, Brearley, and likely Spence.

The other schools often feel like they operate across a somewhat wider range academically and temperamentally, and may be more accommodating to different learning styles and personalities.

It really comes down to knowing your child. Some kids do well in a high-intensity, highly uniform cohort. Others do better in an environment with a bit more flexibility. Neither is better — it’s about fit.

By five, most parents have a sense of whether their child could rise to that level of intensity or might feel stressed by it. And admissions teams are generally good at identifying kids who will thrive in their specific culture.

Also worth saying: schools outside that small TT group are still super competitive to gain admission to and absolutely send plenty of students to top colleges. Long-term outcomes tend to track more with the child than the label. For many families, the difference is more about day-to-day culture than ultimate destination.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Having just gone through K admissions, here’s my take (very broadly speaking). When I refer to “TT,” I’m thinking of schools that tend to have a very consistent culture around pace, expectations, and overall intensity — a relatively narrow group: Trinity, Dalton, Collegiate, Horace Mann, Brearley, and likely Spence.

The other schools often feel like they operate across a somewhat wider range academically and temperamentally, and may be more accommodating to different learning styles and personalities.

It really comes down to knowing your child. Some kids do well in a high-intensity, highly uniform cohort. Others do better in an environment with a bit more flexibility. Neither is better — it’s about fit.

By five, most parents have a sense of whether their child could rise to that level of intensity or might feel stressed by it. And admissions teams are generally good at identifying kids who will thrive in their specific culture.

Also worth saying: schools outside that small TT group are still super competitive to gain admission to and absolutely send plenty of students to top colleges. Long-term outcomes tend to track more with the child than the label. For many families, the difference is more about day-to-day culture than ultimate destination.

This. I think this is insightful.

[Anonymous]

the type of person that comes to post on here. Don’t act like you’re too fancy and had not wondered this same question during the process of committing $70k/year to a service. Get off your soap box.

Anonymous wrote:OP may I ask what school you go to, values and background of your family? Just trying to understand what type of person cares this deeply about defining TT/2T schools

[Anonymous]

What prevents Riverdale from being considered TT (e.g. on what basis is it a notch below)?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:the type of person that comes to post on here. Don’t act like you’re too fancy and had not wondered this same question during the process of committing $70k/year to a service. Get off your soap box.

Anonymous wrote:OP may I ask what school you go to, values and background of your family? Just trying to understand what type of person cares this deeply about defining TT/2T schools

You are past the point of wondering. Maniacally obsessed would be a better descriptor. But ultimately you are the one who assigns their self worth and that of others based on your rankings, others. That will be a race to the bottom for you and your child and family, OP. Good luck.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the type of person that comes to post on here. Don’t act like you’re too fancy and had not wondered this same question during the process of committing $70k/year to a service. Get off your soap box.

Anonymous wrote:OP may I ask what school you go to, values and background of your family? Just trying to understand what type of person cares this deeply about defining TT/2T schools

You are past the point of wondering. Maniacally obsessed would be a better descriptor. But ultimately you are the one who assigns their self worth and that of others based on your rankings, others. That will be a race to the bottom for you and your child and family, OP. Good luck.

You’re not obsessed yet you return here to read and reply to comments?! May you and your family fall in the pits of negative energy, failure and unhappiness. No good luck to you!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the type of person that comes to post on here. Don’t act like you’re too fancy and had not wondered this same question during the process of committing $70k/year to a service. Get off your soap box.

Anonymous wrote:OP may I ask what school you go to, values and background of your family? Just trying to understand what type of person cares this deeply about defining TT/2T schools

You are past the point of wondering. Maniacally obsessed would be a better descriptor. But ultimately you are the one who assigns their self worth and that of others based on your rankings, others. That will be a race to the bottom for you and your child and family, OP. Good luck.

You’re not obsessed yet you return here to read and reply to comments?! May you and your family fall in the pits of negative energy, failure and unhappiness. No good luck to you!

We actually enjoy much positive vibes, prosperity and joy by avoiding toxic people precisely like you and your miserable family. Fortunately, that is a choice and not about luck.

[Anonymous]

You? Positive vibes 😂😂. You’re delusional!. You come here and insult people that have done nothing but make/comment on a post. Insult their family and wish them harm. If this is what joy looks like for you then I’m sorry for your children. You don’t need luck, you need a prayer.